bluecalm

You are in 6♠ without opponents bidding: [hv=n=sa865hakq5dkq4cj3&s=skt74h9daj3cak876]133|200|[/hv] Lead is T♦ which can be everything. Your line ?

How is it calculated ? Meck is by far my favorite player. I watched like few thousand hands from vu archives from his perspective (with all other cards hidden trying to guess his actions). When I play I often ask myself "what would Meck do" :D

:D :unsure: :unsure: Anyway hand is marginal 3♥. 4♥ is huge overbid. Unfortunately there isn't simple way to evaluate those. I have some methods which I trust and I did tons of simuls for similar situations. WC players probably have feel for correct bid without all the work...

I am not fan of "protecting" at all. x Axxx Kxxx KTxx is about as low as I would go. My philosophy is to bid on slightest excuse so we don't have to balance and rescue them if they are in wrong spot or give away 800's just because "partne might be trapping". It has nothing to do about "overcoming". You have a hand which on average will make 3♣ assuming partner has about 2 tricks (or 7count as american version of this rule says) so you overcall.

Yeah, you are right JL. Thanks for that analysis. I guess some more intelligent bidding is needed. Maybe 3♦ first and slow down if partner doesn't accept and roll out bw and stuff if he does ?

Obviously I am driving to slam opposite xxxx ♥. Yes but even if partner has ♥JTxx it's great slam and I assume those things are impossible to check for basically. We play that first step is queen and nothing extra and other bids are natural with queen (depending on sequence they show kings, voids or other stuff). Maybe in this auction queens should be showed as K +Q is impossible after 2♥.

I misread the auction I somehow thought partner opened the bidding. I agree that his bidding is strange. Probably should promise 6 diamonds AKQ and ♣ stop.

Kxx Kx KQ9xx AKT What is he supposed to bid with that hand ?

How E can stop below game after hearing 2♥ is beyond me so it's either 100% his fault or there was misunderstanding as to 4♣ call.

In our (meckwell based) precision it's simple: 1♣ - 1♦ 1♥ - 2♥ 4NT - 5♦ 5♠ - 5NT 6♦ - 7♥ 1♥ = 4+, F1 2♥ = 0-4pc, 4+!H 4NT = rkcb 5♦ = 0 5♠ = queen ? 5NT = yes, no side kings 6♦ = invite for second class values in ♦ (xx or Q) 7♥ = xx It would also be easy to avoid grand slam oppoiste 4-3-3-3 with xxx of diamonds.

6+-4+ is enough for me. Something like: xx x AKJx AKQxxx

Yeah, we play the same way. I suspect it will be standard soon. Thanks for the answers. I try to have as few forcing passes as possible but answers so far tells me that I can have even less than now :D

btw I hope it's clear why 1st and 2nd are different :-) If you play maximal double (do you ?) then you need t/o double in 2nd to be able to penalize them if trump stack is behind their suit.

1) 1♠ - pass - 2♠ - 3♣ pass - pass - dbl = ? 2) 1♠ - pass - 2♠ - 3♥ pass - pass - dbl = ? I am not sure and my friends seem to disagree on this one so I need some opinions :)

I for sure didn't have a blind spot I even managed to construct some simulation (which admittedly wasn't too precise because bidding is complicated). The spade is better than club because you often need a spade ruff and you rarely will get forcing defense going by leading club anyway (that being said I belive club can't be much worse than spade which my very imprecise sim seems to confirm). Red suit leads are obviously very bad, you don't need much experience to know it I think.

Thanks all. Dbl penalty is now my choice thanks to the answers.

I am completing system notes right now and I am taking on forcing pass topic. In general we play that pass isn't forcing too often. I would like to write down general rules to recognize situations where it is forcing. My question: In what situations do you consider forcing pass to be absolutely crucial or at least very usefl. So far I came up with: 1)If we forced to game below game, examples: -2/1 sequencies -2nd relay -strong club and positive response 2)some strong club auctions which I don't like to go into in this thread (as this the whole other topic not interesting for many people) 3)When we are vul they are not and they take obvious sacrifice, example: 1NT - pass - 2♦ - 4♠ pass = forcing 1♦ - pass - 1♠ - 5♥ pass = forcing 4)When we double 1NT opening (weak or strong as we play penalty dbl vs strong) and they bid 2♣/2♦ 1NT - dbl - 2♣/2♦ - pass = forcing 1Nt - dbl - 2♥/2♠ - pass = not forcing That's about it. Here some sequencies I am not sure about: 1) 1♥ - 5♣ - pass = ? 2) 1♥ - pass - 2♥ pass 4♥ - 5♦ - pass ? (it really did come up !) 3) 1♠ - 2♣ - dbl - 5♣ pass = ? All comments are welcome B)

My first thought would be that something is strange as partner has not opened the bidding and we have 6count which leaves 24+ for them and they are bidding that soft. Anyway I lead spade and consider it automatic choice. I hope to one day see some ground breaking analysis which makes me reconsider those obvious situations. I think ruff may be important despite us having 4 trumps.

During evolution of strong pass systems in Poland many of them used ogust like replies (so 2x opener was 5+ cards 8-12hcp one suiter and answers to relay were badhand/bad suit/ good hand-bad suit etc.)

Before reading replies: Lebensohl : very good convention; clearly it's much better than natural meaning of the bid and profits are huge and frequent Ogust - ok convention; i don't have experience enough to say Sandwich 1N - you mean 2 suiter right ? I think it's good I can live without classical 1nt Cappelletti - worst convention ever; absolutely retarded; all natural is much better than capp; all natural + 2♣ majors is like 100x better; DONT - better than capp but still bad; at least it has merits in bal position Gambling 3N - looks stupid but I think it's profitable to play that way with hands that qualify (comparing with opening then 1m or 3m); maybe there are some better meanings of the bid but gambling 3NT is at least decent; Smolen Transfers - meh; i prefer other ways to show major 2suiter and I think you need other way to show 5-5 too to avoid being on 4 level opposite 2-2-(4-5); Texas Transfers - very good convention; there aren't many alternative uses for jump that high anyway; Namyats - very bad; again all natural is much better; I rate convention retarded if natural meaning of the bids is both better and simpler to play. According to this definition Capp and Namyats is retarded and DONT is borderline retarded.

I find it absolutely retarded. If I think the hand is worth opening 2♥ and the pulling to 3♥ why the hell wouldn't I open 3♥ to begin with ?

It makes sense to do simuls opposite hands which doesn't super accept as if they do you are in game anyway. I was writing long reply but then realized I have problems with some conditions when it comes to superaccepts and the results are not stable. I need to verify the results.

As your usual sim provider here it is: 2NT= 20-21 bal, 5M possible; 4♥ makes: 62% (1000 hands). It of course doesn't mean that you should bid it because there are some hands which will carry you to game anyway if you bid transfer but 62% is ezy bash from my experience. Opposite the same hand but with Q instead of K 4♥ makes 38%. It seems that this JDonn has quite a judgment...

4♦. When we have shortness opposite hand which splinters it's usually not wise to signoff. EDIT: after thinking about it a bit I think it depends what exactly 4♦ means; the way we play it it's "not hopeless hand". If it's strong slam interest I agree with 4♥.

He also missed simple (?) throw in before in the final as well as 100% line in the semis in game which Helgemo made. Seems like he wasn't in the best shape this tournament or maybe bridge is just that hard...